As a 57 year old Reaganite that full supports the Ukrainians it is hard for me to believe that most Americans feel that Putin will stop in Ukraine. Putin has said publicly that he would not. Poland and the Baltic States are next. It may take the Commie Bastards a year, three years or even five years to regroup and build up their hardware capabilities, but they will.
Most Americans do not believe Putin will stop with Ukraine. The *most vocal* and *most perpetuated* voices don't care if or when Putin will stop. As Ryan has demonstrated, many Russian state actors and and unknowing Russian assets on social media use the techniques of DIP and the propaganda methods of seeding, watching what trends, and amplifying with bot armies on social media. Sadly, what trends, sells. Now we have folks like MTG essentially endorsing and promoting Russian propaganda. And it's been working beautifully, sadly.
I could not agree more. Sad to say but MTG is simply a nut case. Follow Jake Broe on YT. I am encouraging him to come to Substack. Him and Ryan get along great too.
Let us not forget the appeasement of Neville Chamberlain.
Why do you believe that a man who has repeatedly declared his intention of restoring the territorial extent of the Soviet Union would stop at Ukraine. And why should we allow Russian expansionism?
This is a wag-the dog operation designed to extend the lifespan of the petro-kleptocracy. Also, Russia is no match for the USA, and attacking a NATO member would be the proof of that. We don't have to be fishing for metaphors to oppose this massive war crime.
I agree with your first statement. I believe I misunderstood your post. I now believe you mean we should support Ukraine regardless of Putin's further ambitions, yes?
I was 16 when Reagan was elected to his second term and unable to vote for him, but I too am an old Reananite as well. I’m sure that the Gipper is rolling over in his grave seeing what has happened to the Republican party in the last few years.
At some point does it become treason for those pandering on behalf of Russia?
Balderdash. This is merely Reaganism with the volume at 11. Nationalist flattery and "they took our jobs" are both exactly the playbook. Look up Kevin Phillips and the Southern Strategy.
Putin and Russia are very, very far from being commies. They are petro-plutocrats, and cultural reactionaries. The latter fact is part of the reason why today's Reaganites are doing their bidding by abandoning Ukraine.
I think Reagan would have viewed ukraine as a great opportunity to punish the soviets for over extending themselves. He would have already announced a joint ukraine US air/naval base in Crimea and sent a couple of ships down the Danube to bolster the bases’ maritime defence. And he would of convinced Norway to allow the US navy to build a base as close to Murmansk as possible.
Take your medication Donald, you are overwrought. Reagan would not have done those things. Reagan's secret deal with the hostage takers to not release the American captives until after his election is well documented. A close parallel would be Trump's killing of the border bill so that he would 'fix' things after his election. Both are acts of slime, not the acts of shining patriots.
You TDS is showing. You repeat the old saw about a secret deal with Iran. Ive heard that for decades, of course I have never seen evidence (do you have it?) How did Trump kill the border deal? last I checked he is not in office. Biden can close the border with a stoke of his pen. No congresional approval needed.
I love this crap where Biden's "studying" how he could actually close the border, like he studied how to forgive someone else's loan to potential debtors (voters).
You don't need to study anything, Joe, just put the damn thing back where it was before you fucked with it.
Please go read Articles I and II of the Constitution. The proper way to solve the border problem-ahem, I mean Constitutional method, is for Congress to but a border bill on the President's desk for him to sign or veto it. If it veto's it, then you can blame him. If Congress never sends a bill to his desk, that's Congress's fault.
Congress never passed a bill when Biden took office, he just signed a bunch of executive orders (that's how everything's done now in the post-Constitutional era) which opened the flood gates. So Biden got us here, he can get us out. He didn't need Congress to fuck this up, he did it entirely on his own, so how is it Congress' job to fix?
Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up. - Barack Obama
So you're unfamiliar with a little thing called the Iran-Contra affair? Where Reagan sold arms to Iran and used the profits to fund anti-government death squads in Nicaragua? Sounds like quid pro quo to me. And when Executive Orders and penned by Democratic Presidents, the Right chants "tyranny, that's Congresses job!" Yes, Biden can improve the border situation (which was supposed to be fixed by Trump's Wall that Mexico was going to pay for, but I digress) by penning his signature on the bipartisan border bill that was negotiated in the Senate by the GOP's hand-picked Senator and the majority party. SotH Johnson said he wouldn't even bring it to a vote in the House. It's not a secret that Trump encouraged GOP in Congress to kill the bill because he wants to run his campaign on "look, my opponent did NOTHING to fix the border. Go back and take a look at Article II of your constitution. The President can't just make things happen. He can negotiate treaties (like Trump did with the US-declared terrorist organization the Taliban), sign or veto legislation, and act as the CiC of the Armed forces. That's about it.
I agree with you about Trump. But as far as Reagan and the hostages that were taken by the Iranian Islamic government in 1979 is concerned President Carter did all that he could. Carter even had the military attempt a recuse which failed miserably. However, it did lead to the formation of Delta Force. Reagan was able to "Convince" the Iranians to release the hostages only after he stated directly to them that he would "Turn Iran into glass". This is a statement that Carter would have never made to them--ever. Plus, there was no way that the Iranians were ever going to release the hostages during the Carter Administration.
No, but every other Executive Order Biden might sign is an authoritarian grab, isn't it? Read your Constitution. It is CONGRESS's role to legislate and the President's role to sign or veto legislation. This is the only time is living memory where one party has suggested the opposing Parties president should circumvent Congress's role of legislation by signing an Executive Order. Would you be so please if he just signed an EO to send aid to Ukraine? common, man. In no other circumstance would you be saying "Biden should use an Executive Order!" This is a red herring to distract from the fact that 1) the GOP wanted border concessions in a Ukraine & Israeli Aid bill and declared that no aid bill would be considered without border provisions, 2) the GOP selected a Senator to negotiate with the Dems to reach a compromise aid/border funding bill and then 3) the GOP said they wouldn't pass it and that Biden should use an Executive Order to "fix the border." It's also a distraction from Trumps promise that his Wall would 1) be paid for my Mexico and 2) fix the border problem.
Michael McCaul, Chairman (R), House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in a speech before the vote on aid to Ukraine
"Our adversaries are watching us here today. And history will judge us by our actions here today and now. So as we deliberate on this vote – you have to ask yourself this question. Am I Chamberlin or Churchill?"
Ronald Reagan was also the purveyor of the trickle down economics lie. His support for the rich and corporations has had a great deal to do with the horrendous financial discrepancy between the top percenters and the rest of us. I do not find him to be a shining example of a pillar of Democracy; rather, a voice for populace bluster. You on the other hand, I like a lot. Keep it up.
Guess what plans Reagan had to combat inflation? None. His advisers told him to free up the economy and let the market sort it out. What did Biden do in his first month in office, he cancelled all roaming leases on federal lands. I don’t think he wanted higher gas prices i think he did it to appease the green lobbyists but he shut down 5-10% of us oil producers in one month. Batshit crazy idea. Guess what trump will do when he wins…he’ll get his sharpie out and open up all those wells again.
The Reagan Tax cuts of 1986 allowed my wife and I at age 20 to buy our first home. That equity is still in the home that we own today. My two kids are both in their mid-20s, college graduates with zero debt and they cannot figure out a way to buy their first home.
Ah, trickle down, we're going to trot out that chestnut again?
Tell me Dan, about the time a poor man gave you a job. Date and position. I'm sure you saw it many times in your alternative universe.
When you live in a country of unlimited potential for success, EXPECT financial discrepancies. I see them in my own family. To think everyone comes out with Tom Brady money is fantasy bullshit.
That's the best defense you can come up with? "Tell me when a poor man gave you his job?" and "discrepancies are to be expected?"
We're in a situation that is more than a "discrepancy." Your checking account isn't a few pennies short at the end of the month here but rather, the class divide has gotten 1000x worse since Reagan introduced Reaganomics and it's not showing any signs of getting better. The middle class is being eliminated and it's simply unsustainable.
I didn't care for Reagan, but one thing he got absolutely, unequivocally right was his stance on the USSR. We must take that same approach with Russia and Putin, as well as Iran and North Korea, today.
I don't measure societal success by the Gini coefficient. The old Soviet Union had a lower Gini coefficient because everyone was equally broke. That's the Utopia? The class divide is huge even in my wife's family, and it wasn't Reagan's fault. The middle class is disappearing, but most are moving up to the upper class. And the poor are getting richer, which doesn't fit the narrative, does it?
Challenging the question is the best you can come up with? No. You can't tell me when a poor man gave you a job, because it never happened.
You strive your entire life to get ahead, but in the end, you should be making as much as the guy living in the bushes behind the 7-11? Because that's "fair"?
IMHO I believe Reagan would have already had advisors in country close to the front to bush those boundaries. I'm not a warmonger nor do I wish for war. I believe that we used to walk around the yard with the big one swinging, cough Iran Contra cough.
The landscape has now changed to giving politics a big chance until its time to use force and then play the victim.
That’s right Reagan wouldn’t have pushed for direct confrontation but he would have seen the soviets mistakes as an opportunity to more easily wedge them against their future aggressive intent. But we didn’t just have Reagan we had Schultz and Casper. Who are the modern equivalence’s?
There is no modern equivalence, just bureaucrats who wet themselves over pronouns. Our military is neutered, or transgendered, depending on who you're forced to stare at.
I am not a Regan fan for other reasons, but I have to agree with you on the fact that his policy was consistent. Without his steady clearly understood policy, especially toward Russia things would be very different now. Yes, he had the benefit of Gorbachev as the Russian leader who was willing to talk and change things, unlike leaders previous and since. I definitely think things would look very different in Ukraine and in the Indo-Pacific area if he were in the White House now. The republican party would also have a very different look too, without the people that populate it now. He never would have stood for what it has become.
Trolling is a fishing term, You are not a fish, therefore not required to take the bait. Reagan was my commander and chief. He used back door deplomacy better then any President in our history.
While we're focussing on the actions of dead leaders, how would Stalin or Beria have handled Putin? Chamberlain was flat out wrong, too focussed on UK's internal problems to effecvitely deal with an expansionist Hitler. Stalin signed right up, because he had his own plan in mind.
I have fond memories of Reagan pulling out of the Nixon/Ford/Carter slide into mediocrity. Mistakes - some - we all make 'em. But after the 20th century, we should have learned that when someone comes looking for a fight, you give it to them.
Chamberlain was flat out right. Britain was re arming faster than Germany was arming at that time. The phoney war saved Britain’s behind. The US were two years away from entering the war in Europe. I thank god everyday that hitler declared war on the USA. Before then US companies were quite legally trading with the nazi regime.
Well whatever time it bought for Britain's rearmament was left broken and burnt at Dunkirk. Our isolationism led to the LendLease act, in which we provided arms and aid to Britain before Hitler decided to unlike us. You can thank Hilter but he was reacting to Japans spectacular entry into war with the USA. After Barbarossa's failure, he probably needed a little good news in the form of a second front. Unfortunately for him, that second front would remain just that, and he would remain in the spotlight.
So keeping war at arms length by providing weapons to one combatant or the other (or both) is a stop-gap at best. One of two events will occur - direct involvment or defeat. Success of the smaller combatant (Ukraine) is a longshot while Putin is breathing. I think the de-escalation period was 2014 to 2021, followed by full on invasion in 2022.
The one lesson I hope our leaders are taking away from all this isn't from Reagan - it's Rumsfeld. I'll paraphrase as “You go to war with the army you have" - at your own risk. Ask Lord Gort!
The problem is that Biden is not Reagan, nor is Trump. At best Biden is still an antiwar Democrat from the Vietnam era. Hence the abrupt, "Let's get the f--- out of there!" on Afghanistan. And the extreme fear of offending the Russians.
Trump is a narcissist and narcissists do not give a shit about anyone but themselves, either personally or internationally. He's the pinnacle of isolationism.
As someone who would love to piss on the grave of Ronny for killing the labor movement in the US and his destruction of the middle class....even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Reagan didn’t kill the labor movement in fact he held a news conference on the south lawn and gave them all 24 hours to go back to work. They ignored him. In hindsight I think they’d all agree that was probably a mistake.
Ironically, after Reagan killed the air traffic controller's union, there are articles in the new today about near collisions between aircraft because of the lack of air traffic controllers. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for billionaires somehow.
And yet, historically, every labor & business leader in the world who has studied the Union movement in the US all point to Reagan as the one who, with his use of scabs and firing, killed the labor movement in the USA. In hindsight, literally everyone who studies history agrees that you are wrong in your assessment.
That you went right to something I didn't mention, other than the Agricultural Labor Relations Act or any of his other leadership acts hostile to organized labor, should tell us all we need to know about his role in union-busting in the US.
Reagan would send a note to the Ukrainians and say
"Dear Ukraine: When the Soviet Union Collapsed, we signed an agreement with you that we would guarantee your security if you gave up your nukes. It turns out that we won’t do that, so we are giving you your nukes back. There's a ship that docked in Odessa yesterday…"
Ronald Reagan would send in Oli North to organize and fund an insurgency in Russia. Oli would use his old contacts in Iran to divert the gold Putin was using to pay for the Shahead Drones. He'd sell the Iranians old Dragons he had stashed in South America.
As a 57 year old Reaganite that full supports the Ukrainians it is hard for me to believe that most Americans feel that Putin will stop in Ukraine. Putin has said publicly that he would not. Poland and the Baltic States are next. It may take the Commie Bastards a year, three years or even five years to regroup and build up their hardware capabilities, but they will.
Most Americans do not believe Putin will stop with Ukraine. The *most vocal* and *most perpetuated* voices don't care if or when Putin will stop. As Ryan has demonstrated, many Russian state actors and and unknowing Russian assets on social media use the techniques of DIP and the propaganda methods of seeding, watching what trends, and amplifying with bot armies on social media. Sadly, what trends, sells. Now we have folks like MTG essentially endorsing and promoting Russian propaganda. And it's been working beautifully, sadly.
I could not agree more. Sad to say but MTG is simply a nut case. Follow Jake Broe on YT. I am encouraging him to come to Substack. Him and Ryan get along great too.
MTG is MAGA, which is merely a logical evolution of the Reagan Revolution.
I think Bill Kristol would disagree.
Whether or not Russia will stop at Ukraine -- and they almost certainly would -- has little to do with whether we ought to support Ukraine.
Let us not forget the appeasement of Neville Chamberlain.
Why do you believe that a man who has repeatedly declared his intention of restoring the territorial extent of the Soviet Union would stop at Ukraine. And why should we allow Russian expansionism?
This is a wag-the dog operation designed to extend the lifespan of the petro-kleptocracy. Also, Russia is no match for the USA, and attacking a NATO member would be the proof of that. We don't have to be fishing for metaphors to oppose this massive war crime.
I agree with your first statement. I believe I misunderstood your post. I now believe you mean we should support Ukraine regardless of Putin's further ambitions, yes?
Yes indeed!
I was 16 when Reagan was elected to his second term and unable to vote for him, but I too am an old Reananite as well. I’m sure that the Gipper is rolling over in his grave seeing what has happened to the Republican party in the last few years.
At some point does it become treason for those pandering on behalf of Russia?
The MAGA Republicans in the House have already reached that point and history will not treat them well.
Balderdash. This is merely Reaganism with the volume at 11. Nationalist flattery and "they took our jobs" are both exactly the playbook. Look up Kevin Phillips and the Southern Strategy.
I’m with you.
Commies? Putin? ROFL.
?
Putin and Russia are very, very far from being commies. They are petro-plutocrats, and cultural reactionaries. The latter fact is part of the reason why today's Reaganites are doing their bidding by abandoning Ukraine.
Once a Commie Bastard always a Commie Bastard.
I think Reagan would have viewed ukraine as a great opportunity to punish the soviets for over extending themselves. He would have already announced a joint ukraine US air/naval base in Crimea and sent a couple of ships down the Danube to bolster the bases’ maritime defence. And he would of convinced Norway to allow the US navy to build a base as close to Murmansk as possible.
Take your medication Donald, you are overwrought. Reagan would not have done those things. Reagan's secret deal with the hostage takers to not release the American captives until after his election is well documented. A close parallel would be Trump's killing of the border bill so that he would 'fix' things after his election. Both are acts of slime, not the acts of shining patriots.
You TDS is showing. You repeat the old saw about a secret deal with Iran. Ive heard that for decades, of course I have never seen evidence (do you have it?) How did Trump kill the border deal? last I checked he is not in office. Biden can close the border with a stoke of his pen. No congresional approval needed.
I love this crap where Biden's "studying" how he could actually close the border, like he studied how to forgive someone else's loan to potential debtors (voters).
You don't need to study anything, Joe, just put the damn thing back where it was before you fucked with it.
Please go read Articles I and II of the Constitution. The proper way to solve the border problem-ahem, I mean Constitutional method, is for Congress to but a border bill on the President's desk for him to sign or veto it. If it veto's it, then you can blame him. If Congress never sends a bill to his desk, that's Congress's fault.
Congress never passed a bill when Biden took office, he just signed a bunch of executive orders (that's how everything's done now in the post-Constitutional era) which opened the flood gates. So Biden got us here, he can get us out. He didn't need Congress to fuck this up, he did it entirely on his own, so how is it Congress' job to fix?
Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up. - Barack Obama
So you're unfamiliar with a little thing called the Iran-Contra affair? Where Reagan sold arms to Iran and used the profits to fund anti-government death squads in Nicaragua? Sounds like quid pro quo to me. And when Executive Orders and penned by Democratic Presidents, the Right chants "tyranny, that's Congresses job!" Yes, Biden can improve the border situation (which was supposed to be fixed by Trump's Wall that Mexico was going to pay for, but I digress) by penning his signature on the bipartisan border bill that was negotiated in the Senate by the GOP's hand-picked Senator and the majority party. SotH Johnson said he wouldn't even bring it to a vote in the House. It's not a secret that Trump encouraged GOP in Congress to kill the bill because he wants to run his campaign on "look, my opponent did NOTHING to fix the border. Go back and take a look at Article II of your constitution. The President can't just make things happen. He can negotiate treaties (like Trump did with the US-declared terrorist organization the Taliban), sign or veto legislation, and act as the CiC of the Armed forces. That's about it.
I agree with you about Trump. But as far as Reagan and the hostages that were taken by the Iranian Islamic government in 1979 is concerned President Carter did all that he could. Carter even had the military attempt a recuse which failed miserably. However, it did lead to the formation of Delta Force. Reagan was able to "Convince" the Iranians to release the hostages only after he stated directly to them that he would "Turn Iran into glass". This is a statement that Carter would have never made to them--ever. Plus, there was no way that the Iranians were ever going to release the hostages during the Carter Administration.
No bill and no slime is necessary Dan, all you need is a sharpie.
No, but every other Executive Order Biden might sign is an authoritarian grab, isn't it? Read your Constitution. It is CONGRESS's role to legislate and the President's role to sign or veto legislation. This is the only time is living memory where one party has suggested the opposing Parties president should circumvent Congress's role of legislation by signing an Executive Order. Would you be so please if he just signed an EO to send aid to Ukraine? common, man. In no other circumstance would you be saying "Biden should use an Executive Order!" This is a red herring to distract from the fact that 1) the GOP wanted border concessions in a Ukraine & Israeli Aid bill and declared that no aid bill would be considered without border provisions, 2) the GOP selected a Senator to negotiate with the Dems to reach a compromise aid/border funding bill and then 3) the GOP said they wouldn't pass it and that Biden should use an Executive Order to "fix the border." It's also a distraction from Trumps promise that his Wall would 1) be paid for my Mexico and 2) fix the border problem.
Michael McCaul, Chairman (R), House Committee on Foreign Affairs, in a speech before the vote on aid to Ukraine
"Our adversaries are watching us here today. And history will judge us by our actions here today and now. So as we deliberate on this vote – you have to ask yourself this question. Am I Chamberlin or Churchill?"
Slava Ukraini!
The United States abandoning Allies isn't a good look. Especially to Russian aggression.
Ronald Reagan was also the purveyor of the trickle down economics lie. His support for the rich and corporations has had a great deal to do with the horrendous financial discrepancy between the top percenters and the rest of us. I do not find him to be a shining example of a pillar of Democracy; rather, a voice for populace bluster. You on the other hand, I like a lot. Keep it up.
Guess what plans Reagan had to combat inflation? None. His advisers told him to free up the economy and let the market sort it out. What did Biden do in his first month in office, he cancelled all roaming leases on federal lands. I don’t think he wanted higher gas prices i think he did it to appease the green lobbyists but he shut down 5-10% of us oil producers in one month. Batshit crazy idea. Guess what trump will do when he wins…he’ll get his sharpie out and open up all those wells again.
The Reagan Tax cuts of 1986 allowed my wife and I at age 20 to buy our first home. That equity is still in the home that we own today. My two kids are both in their mid-20s, college graduates with zero debt and they cannot figure out a way to buy their first home.
Ah, trickle down, we're going to trot out that chestnut again?
Tell me Dan, about the time a poor man gave you a job. Date and position. I'm sure you saw it many times in your alternative universe.
When you live in a country of unlimited potential for success, EXPECT financial discrepancies. I see them in my own family. To think everyone comes out with Tom Brady money is fantasy bullshit.
To expect it is mental illness.
That's the best defense you can come up with? "Tell me when a poor man gave you his job?" and "discrepancies are to be expected?"
We're in a situation that is more than a "discrepancy." Your checking account isn't a few pennies short at the end of the month here but rather, the class divide has gotten 1000x worse since Reagan introduced Reaganomics and it's not showing any signs of getting better. The middle class is being eliminated and it's simply unsustainable.
I didn't care for Reagan, but one thing he got absolutely, unequivocally right was his stance on the USSR. We must take that same approach with Russia and Putin, as well as Iran and North Korea, today.
I don't measure societal success by the Gini coefficient. The old Soviet Union had a lower Gini coefficient because everyone was equally broke. That's the Utopia? The class divide is huge even in my wife's family, and it wasn't Reagan's fault. The middle class is disappearing, but most are moving up to the upper class. And the poor are getting richer, which doesn't fit the narrative, does it?
Challenging the question is the best you can come up with? No. You can't tell me when a poor man gave you a job, because it never happened.
You strive your entire life to get ahead, but in the end, you should be making as much as the guy living in the bushes behind the 7-11? Because that's "fair"?
There are two Reagan’s at work. One is immensely popular and a good prop. The real one we might as well forget.
IMHO I believe Reagan would have already had advisors in country close to the front to bush those boundaries. I'm not a warmonger nor do I wish for war. I believe that we used to walk around the yard with the big one swinging, cough Iran Contra cough.
The landscape has now changed to giving politics a big chance until its time to use force and then play the victim.
That’s right Reagan wouldn’t have pushed for direct confrontation but he would have seen the soviets mistakes as an opportunity to more easily wedge them against their future aggressive intent. But we didn’t just have Reagan we had Schultz and Casper. Who are the modern equivalence’s?
There is no modern equivalence, just bureaucrats who wet themselves over pronouns. Our military is neutered, or transgendered, depending on who you're forced to stare at.
I am not a Regan fan for other reasons, but I have to agree with you on the fact that his policy was consistent. Without his steady clearly understood policy, especially toward Russia things would be very different now. Yes, he had the benefit of Gorbachev as the Russian leader who was willing to talk and change things, unlike leaders previous and since. I definitely think things would look very different in Ukraine and in the Indo-Pacific area if he were in the White House now. The republican party would also have a very different look too, without the people that populate it now. He never would have stood for what it has become.
I find it interesting that Gorbachev, also from the KGB Coup of 1983, was still alive when invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Trolling is a fishing term, You are not a fish, therefore not required to take the bait. Reagan was my commander and chief. He used back door deplomacy better then any President in our history.
Reagan was also a believer in the idea that you could hit a bullet with a bullet.
The pundits laughed at the very thought.
Who’s laughing now?
While we're focussing on the actions of dead leaders, how would Stalin or Beria have handled Putin? Chamberlain was flat out wrong, too focussed on UK's internal problems to effecvitely deal with an expansionist Hitler. Stalin signed right up, because he had his own plan in mind.
I have fond memories of Reagan pulling out of the Nixon/Ford/Carter slide into mediocrity. Mistakes - some - we all make 'em. But after the 20th century, we should have learned that when someone comes looking for a fight, you give it to them.
Chamberlain was flat out right. Britain was re arming faster than Germany was arming at that time. The phoney war saved Britain’s behind. The US were two years away from entering the war in Europe. I thank god everyday that hitler declared war on the USA. Before then US companies were quite legally trading with the nazi regime.
Well whatever time it bought for Britain's rearmament was left broken and burnt at Dunkirk. Our isolationism led to the LendLease act, in which we provided arms and aid to Britain before Hitler decided to unlike us. You can thank Hilter but he was reacting to Japans spectacular entry into war with the USA. After Barbarossa's failure, he probably needed a little good news in the form of a second front. Unfortunately for him, that second front would remain just that, and he would remain in the spotlight.
So keeping war at arms length by providing weapons to one combatant or the other (or both) is a stop-gap at best. One of two events will occur - direct involvment or defeat. Success of the smaller combatant (Ukraine) is a longshot while Putin is breathing. I think the de-escalation period was 2014 to 2021, followed by full on invasion in 2022.
The one lesson I hope our leaders are taking away from all this isn't from Reagan - it's Rumsfeld. I'll paraphrase as “You go to war with the army you have" - at your own risk. Ask Lord Gort!
Ronnie Raygun was the greatest US President, hands down...prove me wrong
The problem is that Biden is not Reagan, nor is Trump. At best Biden is still an antiwar Democrat from the Vietnam era. Hence the abrupt, "Let's get the f--- out of there!" on Afghanistan. And the extreme fear of offending the Russians.
Trump is a narcissist and narcissists do not give a shit about anyone but themselves, either personally or internationally. He's the pinnacle of isolationism.
Calvin and Hobbes was the best comic ever!
As someone who would love to piss on the grave of Ronny for killing the labor movement in the US and his destruction of the middle class....even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Reagan didn’t kill the labor movement in fact he held a news conference on the south lawn and gave them all 24 hours to go back to work. They ignored him. In hindsight I think they’d all agree that was probably a mistake.
If you are referring to the air traffic controllers you are correct. They are federal employees and it is against federal law for them to strike.
Ironically, after Reagan killed the air traffic controller's union, there are articles in the new today about near collisions between aircraft because of the lack of air traffic controllers. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for billionaires somehow.
Ben, I'd say your post didn't age well, but I see it was only posted 3 hours ago.
Tell us again about the hell of air travel:
https://www.dcreport.org/2021/11/12/its-been-20-years-since-the-last-catastrophic-u-s-plane-crash/
Can't blame the air traffic controllers for Boeings quality control problems.
And yet, historically, every labor & business leader in the world who has studied the Union movement in the US all point to Reagan as the one who, with his use of scabs and firing, killed the labor movement in the USA. In hindsight, literally everyone who studies history agrees that you are wrong in your assessment.
That you went right to something I didn't mention, other than the Agricultural Labor Relations Act or any of his other leadership acts hostile to organized labor, should tell us all we need to know about his role in union-busting in the US.
Reagan would send a note to the Ukrainians and say
"Dear Ukraine: When the Soviet Union Collapsed, we signed an agreement with you that we would guarantee your security if you gave up your nukes. It turns out that we won’t do that, so we are giving you your nukes back. There's a ship that docked in Odessa yesterday…"
Ronald Reagan would send in Oli North to organize and fund an insurgency in Russia. Oli would use his old contacts in Iran to divert the gold Putin was using to pay for the Shahead Drones. He'd sell the Iranians old Dragons he had stashed in South America.